Pages

Monday, 12 February 2018

An Open Letter to the Office of the Victorian Government Architect: "Sack Yourselves"

To whom it may concern,

I write in relation to learning of your role in the assessment process for the proposed Apple Store in Federation Square.

I am not - other than a couple of Fine Art History subjects, a trained
architect, but I am about to be able to tell you in fairly clear and
rational terms how your Office has so demonstrably totally voided its
entire mandate, such that I write today to demand, on behalf of
architecture, your resignation.

This is the city's premier public space, and was created by
international design competition. Something almost unprecedented in
terms of major projects in this city, but widely regarded as
architectural best practice. Your recommendations therefore stand
foundationally against architectural best practice even before any of
their detail is scrutinised.

So on this basis already it appears that you do not understand that
your entire role is to apply architectural best practice to the maximal
possible extent in this city, and to advocate as much to government. The
alternative is you do understand this, but have chosen for whatever
reason to bend to the political wind, or you don't care enough to do
your job properly. All conclusions suggest you need to be removed from
this role for a fundamental failure of purpose.

Moving on to some of the architectural impact. The importance of this
space is established and largely not contested. This space is SO
important not just because it won a design competition, but more because
of its significance in civic affairs, and that it was designed as a
coherent space that had its own spatial symbolism, with stone hewn from
all the states being sourced.

That you as an architect can suggest a civic SQUARE (the single urban
spatial typology most relevant to an at scale planned coherence) could
be improved by having one of the complete coherent set of buildings
replaced by a building in an entire other style, and with no
architectural logic whatsoever.

That you as an architect can give approval to Norman Foster's, copied and
pasted (and he CLEARLY hasn't even TRIED put any contextual design into
this) design beggars belief.

The building's balanced zen and extended lines seem calculated to
be as violent a jar as possible against the existing style's wildly
angular and tesselated postmodern patterning. If you can look at those
two building styles in tandem and suggest the architectural realm has
been improved, you need to return to architecture school. These are not
two neighbouring buildings in a streetscape, these are two parts of ONE
SQUARE.

This is a HERITAGE BUILDING. Federation Square would eventually have
been listed. Your stylistic intervention, by the principles laid down in
the Burra Charter, actually JEOPARDISES THE FUTURE HERITAGE
LISTING OF ARGUABLY THE CITY'S MOST IMPORTANT CIVIC SPACE.

You have not
thought this through, you have not, once again done any of your duty to
uphold good architectural principles in relation to preservation. We are
continually losing or seeing compromised (qv IM Pei's Collins Place) important modernist and
postmodern buildings before they are listed. The appropriate job for
your office here was to ensure this known policy trap within the urban
arena did not adversely effect the outcome.

So, the bases on which I believe all individuals within the
Office of the Victorian Government Architect with any responsibility for this decision are unqualified to continue
in the role are these:

1. This is the most important decision you will ever make, as the public
interest has never been more imperiled by politicians' and
corporations' vanity, and you have chosen to aid its imperilment

2. You fundamentally only had one job to do at 1, and failed at the most important moment

3. You've thrown out the results of an international design competition for a coherent premier public space

4. The thing you've given the thumbs up to is abysmal in any architectural langauage, and by any assessment.

5. Thinking a non-coherent space is better than a coherent one, and for not comprehending a square needs to be coherent

6. The co-option of Don Bates, and your disrespect to the two dead architects who are spinning in their graves today

7. Failure to consider the heritage impact

8. The absolute obvious inappropriate violence of the juxtaposition of styles

Although, in conclusion, there could be ONE possible out for you in all of this.

We need to be clear that you do actually know where Federation Square IS, yes? CITY square is the one with the right angles ....